Nuclear has come a spectacularly long way. Nuclear is clean, efficient and very safe. The major concern should be proliferation, not environmental damage IMO. Here’s a pretty good Nuclear FAQ from awhile ago,
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/
It’s Canadian, but that should be okay, CANDUs are up there with the most advanced technology and improving constantly.
From one of the questions,
CANDU reactors can also burn spent PWR fuel, since the U-235 content in this fuel is still slightly enriched over natural fuel. The South Koreans are especially interested in this potential synergism between PWR and CANDU reactors, since they operate both types.
Recently, CANDU technology has been considered by the U.S. D.O.E. as a vehicle for denaturing weapons-grade plutonium declared surplus after the warming of the Cold War. See the next section for more details.
Yeah, I hear they’ve figured out a way to use spent uranium rods as crop fertilizer!
Here’s a pretty good Nuclear FAQ from awhile ago,
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/
As a general rule, one should not trust praise of a product when it’s coming from the people who are trying to sell it to you.
Edit: More on the author of that website:
Dr. Jeremy Whitlock … is a reactor physicist at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s (AECL) Chalk River Laboratories, and is the immediate Past President of the Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Nuclear Society (ANS). He has a PhD in Engineering Physics from McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario), with a specialty in CANDU reactor physics. Dr. Whitlock’s current professional involvement is the physics analysis of MAPLE research reactors. … In 1999 Dr. Whitlock received the Education and Communication Award from the Canadian Nuclear Society, partly for his work on this website.
There are not shortages. There are folks trying to make their fortunes right now, 'cause they won’t be able to get away with it for long, and the new push for clamping down on polution and focussing on other, non-depleting energy sources is going to take the wind out of oil’s sails in the not too distant future.
I have a friend who actually works for the big oil industry. He confides that there is no acceptable reason for the rate increases at this time.
Two words… “half life”… oh, and another… “disposal”
Ain’t no gettin’ around those in any acceptable way.
Here’s what Mr. Burns, um, I mean Dr. Whitlock has to offer on the topic of disposal:
In 1988 the CNFWMP, through AECL, submitted its generic (non-site-specific) proposal [11] for long-term nuclear used-fuel management to the federal government, which intiated an Environmental Review process that ultimately took ten years to conclude. Under the proposal, the used fuel would be placed in disposal vaults about 500 to 1000 meters deep in the granite rock of the Canadian Shield. The “formations of choice” are large, single intrusions called batholiths, formed between one and two billion years ago, and geologically stable since that time. Other criteria met by grantitic batholiths are low mineral (and therefore economic) value, and low ground-water movement rates.
Used fuel would be encased in corrosion-resistant containers designed to last thousands of years, and surrounded by a buffer material (such as bentonite clay) that retards water migration. The vaults, tunnels, and shafts of this disposal site would be backfilled and sealed during its closure stage. The safety design of the emplacement technology has been developed with the conservative assumption that the fuel-bearing containers will only last a fraction of their design life. The technology also does not depend on long-term institutional controls, and is adaptable to future societal requirements and changes in criteria.A specific site has not been sought at this stage, as mandated by the joint decision of the federal and Ontario governments in 1981 to develop only generic technology for initial review. However, key site characteristics (distance from post-glacial faulting, low mineral value, low ground-water movement, size and uniform nature of plutonic rock, etc.) have been defined in preparation for the siting stage of the program.
Depending on the size chosen for the facility, the total project cost is estimated at between CDN$9 and CDN$13 billion, spread over a 60- to 90-year period (during most of which, about 1000 people would be employed in the construction and operation). Electricity users in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick currently contribute about 1% of their electricity costs towards a fund for future long-term nuclear waste disposal.
In the rest of the article, he explains that for the moment we just stick’em in these big swimming pools for a year or so, then moving them to “air dry” under a few feet of concrete, and that:
The radiation … creates a simultaneous need for shielding. About three meters of water are sufficient to absorb the radiation emitted initially by the used fuel, while in the dry-storage phase about a meter of concrete suffices. Unshielded, the radiation dose measured at a distance of 30 cm from a used CANDU fuel bundle, one year following discharge, would be about 50 - 60 Sv/h (5000 - 6000 rem/h) [5], which is lethal after a few minutes’ exposure. The radiation level drops to about 1 Sv/h after 50 years, 0.3 Sv/h after 100 years, and less than 0.001 Sv/h (100 mrem/h) after 500 years. At this time the major hazard from the used fuel is no longer one of external exposure; for example, by these estimates, spending an hour about a foot away from a 500-year-old CANDU fuel bundle would result in radiation dose about 1/4 of the average annual background exposure, and thousands of times less than what is known to lead to physical harm.
He sounds so … perky about the whole thing. “Standing a foot away from a spent fuel rod five hundred years from now “only” generates TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY (give or take) times the normal amount of radiation in the atmosphere. As far as we know, that might not even make your skin fall off!”
Why… golly! He’s sure reassured me. 
No one knows risk like the insurance industry. They have made it a science. No nuclear power installation is insurable anywhere in the world. The risks and extent of outcomes for any kind of accident are so staggering that the insurance industry won’t touch them. Anyone who tells you they are safe is an outright liar, and worse, a dangerous criminal.
The idea of burying reactor waste in deep mining pits near Sudbury, Ontario, has been around for decades. No-one can get around the fact that there is groundwater seepage, and absolutley no way of recovery once radioactive waste starts leaking into the water table.
Nuclear power is just a bad idea all around. The only ones trying to tell you it is safe are the physisists who like to play with it regardless of any consequences, and the crooks who are trying to make a buck off it.
One of the big problems with tidal power is fouling of the turbines by marine life. No-one has come up with a working solution for this. Maintenance is expected to be excessive due to this problem.
Speaking of tidal power, I’m surprised no-one has mentioned the project that is already underway to put large tide-driven turbine propellers in the river beside Manhattan. This is expected to generate power for several large buildings. As experience grows with this technology I would guess we will see more and more of this type of thing.
djm
I’m rather fond of the large fields of very high wind turbines visible from a couple of points on my way to Minneapolis last year.
Thanks, I can read. I know who he is. Would you rather have had me post something from David Susuki? Seems to me that the best person to talk about Nuclear Power and the CANDU reactor specifically is someone who works closest with them. Attack what he says, not who he is.
Nuclear power creates waste, yes, but it can be stored and who knows what will be possible in the future. They are not putting nuclear waste in your backyard, just like, I assume, they haven’t put an oil refinery in your backyard.
djm the insruance company can talk about the cost of a meltdown, not whether or not there will be one. The last North American Nuclear Disaster was Three Mile Island in 1979. Since then, two have taken place, both in Japan. As far as I know, no disaster has ever taken place in France and I believe they have more experience than anyone. So where you get the idea that they are any more dangerous than, say, your average chemical plant, I have no idea.
Moor, I invite do a bit of research on radioactive steam emissions from the Bruce power plant, as well as those coming up here from the south side of Lake Erie. There have been several studies tracking the increase in occurence of lymphoma along the the track of winds carrying these emissions. A total meltdown is only one of many potential threats represented by a nuclear installation. Remember the "accidental leaks"of irradiated heavy water into Lake Ontario just a couple of years ago?
No, I do not trust any scientist associated with nuclear energy, anymore than I trust the scientists who said thalidimide was safe for expecting mothers, or the scientists who said that that PCBs or TCDDs (Agent Orange) or dioxins, etc. are safe for the environment. Just because someone has Piled higher and Deeper (PhD) after their name does not in any way make them honest or trustworthy.
djm
I can’t speak to the Bruce Plant because I have not read those studies. However, I can say that I’ve read similar things concerning everything from power lines to cell phones. Every form of industry and power generation has costs. That’s not to poo-poo on people with lymphoma, just to say that I fail to see how it is more serious than people who suffered from something like the Sydney tar-ponds. Should we stop making steel too? I don’t believe you should pack these things in, I believe that you should research and watch them very carefully.
No a PhD is not always reliable, but I couldn’t find any BA students at MacDonalds with much knowledge of Nuclear Physics.
Surely you are joking. They are indeed putting nuclear waste in our backyard. The trouble is, that you are not considering the immensity of the yard, and the enormity of the risk. Anyplace on the planet, or, arguably in the solar system, or even the universe, is not far enough away, and no ammount of cladding, burying, shielding, etc. is enough. It builds up far,far faster than it breaks down, and that, in case you hadn’t considered, presents a serious storage problem as well. When you are making something faster than you can dispose of it, you’ve got problems… when that something you are making and having paroblems disposing of is stupendously toxic, far-reaching, and long-lived, you are not just asking for, but postively guaranteeing trouble. Trouble that no-one, now or 500 years from now, can afford.
Not just produce. Everything we consume has fossil fuels at its roots. Cattle eat grain that is harvested and transported using fossil fuels…and those same fuels are used to move the cattle to the feed lot, the slaughter house, and eventually to the supermarket.
The trouble with talking about things like nuclear is they’re still not addressing the need for fossil fuels in tractors, trucks, etc. Nuclear power may light our homes, but it won’t run a truck or a tractor. Unless we can find a viable alternative to gasoline, we are seriously screwed. I don’t know about you, but I can barely afford to feed my family now…if food prices keep going up, it’s going to get seriously scary…especially with so many jobs going overseas!
Redwolf
Well, my understanding of it (and I’m not sure if the discussion was about CANDU or something else) was that it is possible to build a reactor that generates a waste far less toxic and hazardous than plutonium, perhaps something with a far shorter half life or even non-radioactive. I’m sorry I don’t have even the slightest reference for this. The explanation given to me for why we don’t have these is that there is no financial incentive to build power plants right now, and because of the political climate against nuclear power in any form. I’ll need to consult the hubby, he might be able to give me better information about it.
Robin
Well, we have had ‘em here for years (Altamont Pass) and they are a killing ground for raptors (hawks, eagles, owls). They are shutting down a substantial number of em’ for that reason, pending a design change of some sort.
I would like to believe they are great too, but at this cost as of now. Because we got plenty of wind here.
Redwolf/Weekenders
While you are absolutely right that an increase in oil prices has a knock on affect across the board to anything downstream of where the production and transportation costs are, there is a flip side of this that you’ve missed.
Higher oil prices mean more money for the oil companies, but it also means more tax revenue for your government. It means the stock market does better, and so your pension plan, stocks and savings do better too (the current rise in the FTSE is largely due to the oil majors), and it also gives a bit of stability to an industry that employs millions of people and allows them to feed, clothe and house their families (and, in case you hadn’t guessed - I’m one of 'em). I remember less that ten years ago when Brent crude spot was somewhere around $15/bbl, and I didn’t know if I was going to be employed from one month to the next. I didn’t get a pay rise for nearly 2 and a half years, and I counted myself lucky. It wasn’t much fun, I can tell you, so from where I’m sitting high oil proces ain’t necessarily all bad in the short term.
Of course, the other thing that high fuel costs does is encourage people to economise - maybe walk or cycle instead of taking the car. Maybe get a more fuel efficient car. Maybe use public transport. All these things have a positive effect on the environment.
The irony is, of course, that we’re all going to have to learn to live without oil in the forseeable future. Unfortunately, the only way alternative technologies are going to get serious investment is when they become economic. A major driver in that is the price of oil, as it gives both an incentive to find better and cheaper ways, and also provides the money for the energy companies to carry out the R&D work. And trust me - they are doing it. Shell, BP, etc do not plan to pack up shop and go home when the last drop of oil and gas sputters out of the ground.
So high oil proces aren’t bad in the long term either. In fact, they are an inevitable and necessary part of moving on to an alternative.
They are, however, a massive pain in the backside if you’ve just realised your heating tank is empty. 
Respectfully,
Osc
Below is my transportation to and from work and most of my shopping after work. Owning several pairs of good sturdy shoes.
If needed I use a blend of public transportation, taxis, bicycle, and roller blades depending on the distance I have to travel.
I don’t buy bottled water but have noticed the large price increases in all foods, clothes and anything else that I purchase. So even if you don’t own a car, we’re all being hit by high oil prices that seem to have the skies the limit attitude.
I’m against urban sprawl, freeways but for public transportation, higher population densities, sustainable cities.
But if I did consider to buy a car this is what I would purchase, there is a six month waiting list for delivery here in Windsor for this car, in the home of the minivan and the Big Three (well the old big three).
Test drove one three weeks ago and loved every minute of it, for the urban enviroment this is the car to have.
MarkB
Oh God, it’s trickle-down econonmics once again.
I’m sure my government will do great things with all that money while my family is starving. Of course, none of those things will be anything like national health care or farm relief, that might make a difference to the average Joe.
My daughter goes to school six miles away, down the side of a mountain. You think I’m going to send her off on a bicycle every morning? Think again. Or on a bus that will take two hours and at least two transfers to go six miles? I think not.
I’d love to buy a more fuel-efficient car…unfortunately, they cost money too. Like most Americans, I have to make due with what I have.
Sure, I could move closer to where my daughter goes to school…if I had $795,000 to spend on a house, or $1,500 a month to spend on rent. Sorry, but I just don’t fall into that income bracket. We considered moving to another state a few years ago, but unfortunately the bottom fell out of the computer market due to my government making it easy for the big corporations to move jobs overseas…so we’re stuck. And we’re not alone.
The bottom line is, these prices are already being artificially manipulated to benefit the same corporations that my government is already helping with my tax dollars.
“Retirement plan”? What f*ckin’ retirement plan? My husband’s company considers issuing him stock options a sufficient “retirement plan.” And then they manipulate the stock sales so the average employee can do little or nothing with those options.
I said it before, and I’ll say it again…there’s going to be a crisis of enormous proportions, and it’s going to happen soon.
Redwolf
Don’t get to upset Redwolf, what you are saying is coming, here in Canada it has been reported that our federal government is sitting on a 9.1 billion dollar surplus over last year and we as Canadians haven’t seen one cent in tax cuts since they (the liberals) have come to power, and we are an energy rich country paying world prices for fuel! And they don’t have the slightest idea what to do with, no vision or idea what so ever.
Maybe higher prices for while jolt us into really thinking how we are living and what we should do about it.
markB
Yeah, Mark, I don’t get that. I doubt the Saudi’s are paying world prices for their oil, but then I could be wrong. Is it true that the major oil supplier to the U.S. is Canada? Doesn’t it seem like we could strike some kind of deal that would benefit everyone? I mean, hurricanes don’t really affect transporting oil from Canada to the U.S.!
Robin